Posted on 02/12/2015 2:17:57 PM PST by NYer
>
Do you know how to answer a non Catholic Christian who challenges you about the Bible?
Knowing how everybody loves lists, here are ten things every Catholic should know about Sola Scriptura:
1. Sola Scriptura means “only Scripture”. It is the Protestant belief that the Bible is the only source for teaching on doctrine and morality.
2. Sola Scriptura was one of three “solos” the other two being Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
3. Sola Scriptura which means “Scripture Alone” cannot be found in the Bible. The closest proof text is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” While this verse says Scripture is useful for these things it doesn’t say Scripture is the only source for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
4. While Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura, in practice they interpret the Bible according to their own denominational traditions. Presbyterians have the Bible plus Calvinism. Baptists have the Bible plus their theological opinions. Lutherans have the Bible plus the teaching of Luther etc.
5. Jesus commanded and prophesied that he would establish a church, but he nowhere commanded or prophesied that a book would be written recording his words and works. This is why Catholics say the Church came first. The Bible came second. Jesus passed his authority on through the apostles–not through a book.
6. How could sola Scriptura be the only way for people to know God when, for most of history, the majority of people could neither read nor have access to books?
7. Protestants blame Catholics for believing late, man made doctrines that the early church had never heard of, but Sola Scriptura had never been heard of before the sixteenth century. Not only can it not be proved from the Bible, but there is no trace of the doctrine of sola Scriptura anywhere in the writings of the early church. The entire edifice of Protestantism, however, is based on the foundation of sola Scriptura.
8. If the only source for teaching and moral instruction comes from the Bible how are we supposed to answer the questions that arise about things that were never heard of in Bible times? How can the Bible instruct us about important current problems like nuclear war, artificial contraception, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, gender re-assignment or genetic modification, cloning or a whole range of other modern issues. Only a living and dynamic, Spirit filled authority can sift the facts and come up with the right teaching.
9. Sola Scriptura is linked with the idea of that the Bible is easy enough for any simple person to understand. While the basic teachings seem easy to understand it is clear that the Bible is an extremely complex document which requires the insights of theologians, Bible scholars and linguists to understand clearly. Why else would Protestant pastors be required to go to seminary before being qualified to be pastors?
10. Sola Scriptura has led to the thousands of divisions within Protestantism. Because they couldn’t agree, even from the beginning, the Protestant leaders began to split and form their own sects. How could sola Scriptura be the foundation for the church when it leads to such division? How could this division be part of Jesus command and prayer that there be “one flock and one shepherd”?
Scripture IS the TRUTH.
The church is not the truth. it's only to support it.
Were the eastern churches not also entrusted with this “teaching authority”? After all, when we challenge Roman Catholic claims to be the “church founded by Christ” with the existence of the eastern churches which are just as ancient, you claim them as part of the larger “Catholic church” to avoid the contradiction.
So, if the eastern and western branches cannot agree on matters of doctrine, then how can Catholics claim to have authority the rest of us should follow? Whose authority shall we follow if you cannot agree amongst yourselves?
Catholics don’t believe Scripture is invalid.
Oral teaching is not tradition.
Tradition is what is passed down from one generation to the next.
Verbal, oral, teaching can be done right from Scripture itself and does not automatically become tradition by virtue of the fact that it is spoken.
The Catholic church is great at denigrating Scripture and attacking its integrity.
Did God really say....?????
Have you smeared fish innards on peoples eyes who have cararacts to heal them like it says to do in your "complete" Bible?
Do you believe it's a disgrace to have a daughter like it says in your "complete" Bible?
Check the links?
Why do you think he buried under the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica?
I don’t have any questions for you. You were the one asking about Protestant doctrine, but you don’t seem to want to ask a proper question, just loaded ones.
I keep asking this question. Never get an answer.
Jesus set the standard: "It is written....."
John wrote, Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. 20:30-1
I'm good with that.
Next question, please.
See here.
It never fails to amaze me just how much the thought of following God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture alone pushes Catholic over the edge.
The way they fight and rail against the thought and would rather trust in fallible men goes to show just here they are spiritually.
And while we are on the subject of authority By what authority does any non-Catholic have to say that Jimmy’s definition is the correct one. I am sure that you have a good explanation for this.
The Holy Spirit's "opinion" stated through Paul when speaking of the Jews. No Catholics in site. Besides, God used Judas, Balaam's donkey, and Pontius Pilot also to further His will.
Why do you think he is buried under the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica?
The traditional spot for the beheading is known as the Abbey of the Three Fountains (the head reputedly bounced three times before coming to rest), which is south of the modern center of Rome. Early reports stated he was laid in the family tomb of a devout Roman noblewoman named Matrona Lucilla. His remains may have subsequently been hidden in catacombs for safekeeping during Vespasian’s reign (see below). Nearby the abbey is the monumental Church of San Paolo Fuori Le Mura (St. Paul Outside the Walls) where the remains of Paul are entombed. Owing to popular interest in the location of Paul’s burial, experts from the Vatican undertook in 2002 to investigate the area beneath the main altar where it was believed his tomb is located.
The team first conducted a survey in order to reconstruct the shape of the original basilica built by the Emperor Constantine around A.D. 320. In A.D. 390, the Emperor Theodosius enlarged the structure and encased Paul's remains in a sarcophagus located on view in the middle of the basilica. Later emperors further enlarged and embellished the church such that it became the largest and most beautiful in all of Rome. Unfortunately, the building was largely destroyed by a fire in 1823.
Having established the layout of the original small basilica, a second excavation was begun under the altar that brought to light the sarcophagus, which was situated at the ground level of the 4th century building. Vatican Museum archaeologist George Filippi states, “We know for sure it’s the same object because the stone coffin is embedded in the layer of the Theodosian basilica.” An earthquake in A.D. 433 caused the collapse of portions of the building. Subsequent renovations raised the level of the floor and the sarcophagus was buried and covered by a marble tombstone.
The main altar of the modern church, named the Papal Altar, was erected atop the concrete and debris left by the 1823 fire that had buried the original sarcophagus and tombstone. The excavations revealed an inscription on the marble tombstone bearing the Latin words “Paulo Apostolo Mart,” which translates to “Apostle Paul, Martyr.” Archaeologists further opened up a window measuring 70 cm. wide and 1.00 meter deep to reach the side of the sarcophagus. An ancient hole in the cover about 10 cm. wide was discovered which, according to Filippi, was used to dip pieces of fabric inside the coffin in order to produce relics out of the pieces themselves.
Earlier this year Pope Benedict announced the finds from an inspection of the contents of the sarcophagus. A tiny hole drilled in the coffin revealed:
traces of a precious linen cloth, purple in color, laminated with pure gold, and a blue colored textile with filaments of linen. It also revealed the presence of grains of red incense and traces of protein and limestone. There were also tiny fragments of bone, which, when subjected to Carbon 14 tests by experts, turned out to belong to someone who lived in the 1st or 2nd century.
While these results fall short of proving conclusively that the Apostle Paul’s remains are entombed in the church, they are consistent with the traditions and leave open the opportunity for further investigations. The modern basilica is a massive construction consisting of a large central nave flanked by two side aisles divided by 80 enormous columns. It reputedly replicates the grandiose Basilica Ulpia of the Emperor Trajan, built early in the 2nd century A.D. The Roman basilica was an architectural form initially used for monumental public buildings and later adopted by Christians for sacred structures. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/10/08/new-discoveries-relating-to-the-apostle-paul.aspx#Article
No conclusive proof it is Paul. Not that is would matter if it were.
NO, we haven’t gotten any answers from you.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
Please show where oral tradition is written.
The way they fight and rail against the thought and would rather trust in fallible men goes to show just here they are spiritually.
How did we get the canon of Scripture, anyway?
I ask in part because the first sentence reminded me of Marcion, an "interesting" early figure who defined the canon as only a fraction of what most Christians accept today. (What he accepted was his version of the gospel of Luke and certain letters of Paul.) Following his "scripture alone" would yield different results for one's theology.
Tradition is what is passed down from one generation to the next.
And how do you suppose it was passed down? Orally.
I don't suppose you believe the accounts and evidence that Peter's real tomb was found in Jerusalem in 1953 right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.